CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1699 OF 2002 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 12, 2008
Gian Singh and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
Sampuran Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. K. S. Maangat, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
None for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.3.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners, eight in number, have filed this revision
petition, impugning the order framing charge against them under
Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”). Sampuran Singh and
Kaka Singh are two complainants, who have lodged this complaint
against the petitioners. The case set up by them is that they
belonged to Ramdasia caste, which is a scheduled caste. On
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1699 OF 2002 :{ 2 }:
6.4.2001, the complainants alongwith other members of the
community went to pay obeisance in Gurudwara Sahib, when the
petitioners armed with lathies and dandas allegedly prevented them
from doing so and locked the Gurudwara. Allegation further is that
the petitioners said that Gurudwara was not meant for “Churas and
Chamars” and told the complainants to make their own Gurudwara. It
is further alleged that on 11.4.2001, the complainant had again gone
to the Gurudwara Sahib for taking holly book of Sri Guru Granth
Sahib for starting Akhand Path in their own Gurudwara Sahib, which
they had constructed but the petitioners again locked the Gurudwara
Sahib and prevented the complainant from entering there. It is on this
basis urged that the petitioners had intentionally insulted the
complainants and other members of the community. On the basis of
this complaint and the evidence of the complainants as recorded, the
Court has framed a charge against the petitioners under Section 3(x)
of the Act.
Notice in the revision was issued and further proceedings
before the Trial Court were stayed. Today, no one appears on behalf
of the complainants.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that
there is no specific attribution to any of the petitioners for having
uttered the words as alleged. The allegation, as such, would remain
vague. The Court, while framing the charge, was conscious of this
fact and has itself observed that the allegation levelled against the
accused persons is more in nature a general allegation and specific
attribution is not there. Still, the Court has gone to frame the charge
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1699 OF 2002 :{ 3 }:
under Section 3(x) of the Act. Counsel further contends that even if
everything is taken at the face value, it is seen that the words as
allegedly used were not in “public view”. Counsel refers to Section 3
(x) of the Act to point out that one of the essential ingredients of the
offence is that the words are used with intention to insult or intimidate
in any place within the “public view”. Counsel would refer to the
contents of the complaint to urge that as per the allegations in the
complaint, the petitioners had locked the Gurudwara and were as
such, inside the Gurudwara while the complainants were standing
outside. The words as alleged were used by the petitioners while
they were inside the Gurudwara. Though, it is mentioned in the
complaint that some other persons were present with the
complainants but none is named. Since all the petitioners have been
arrayed as accused, they can not be taken as a members of public to
say that the use of these words was in “public view”. The counsel for
the petitioners submits that no other person has been cited as a
witness, who could come and depose that the words were used in his
presence. Two persons are the complainants and they have alone
given evidence to say that these words were used. Though they seek
support from the evidence of Ajaib Singh (PW3) but he had also
remained quite vague in giving his evidence and has not made any
specific attribution to any of the petitioners. So is the state of
evidence given by the complainants.
It is to be seen if the offence under Section 3(x) is made
out from the allegations as made from the complaint to frame charge.
If the words were used in public view, it was required to be averred in
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1699 OF 2002 :{ 4 }:
the complaint being an important ingredient of the offence. This is not
so stated in the complaint that words were used by the petitioners in
public view. It would be debatable if the complainants would be
legally in a position to give evidence on this aspect, when it is not so
stated in the complaint. Once it has not been pleaded in the
complaint that the words were uttered in public view, any evidence in
this regard even if given would be seen as an improvement and so
viewed with suspicion. If indeed, it had been a fact, the complainants
were bound to make averment in this regard in the complaint and
then would have been entitled to lead evidence on that aspect. The
words used obviously are not in public view and have not been so
pleaded in the complaint.
Learned counsel has sought support from the cases of
Jasrath Singh and another Vs. State of M.P., 2006 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 272, State of Rajasthan Vs. Dipti Ram, 2001 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 765 and Amrit Lal Mardia & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar,
2007 (5) RCR (Criminal) 674. It is held in these cases that the
offending words used to constitute an offence should necessarily be
with an intention to insult or intimidates the member of scheduled
caste or scheduled tribe and should be at any place within public
view. In Amrit Lal Mardia’s case (supra), it is held that alleged insult
or humiliation should be caused in a place within the public view. As
per the ratio of law in these cases, if complainants are not insulted,
intimidated or humiliated at a place within the public view, no offence
would made out.
The allegations made in the complaint can be looked from
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1699 OF 2002 :{ 5 }:
another angle also. The complainants had gone to pay obeisance at
the Gurudwara Sahib. The petitioners had allegedly not allowed them
to enter the Gurudwara. They had locked the Gurudwara by entering
inside it. The words that this Gurudwara is not meant for Chura
Chamars in this background, obviously were not used for the
complainants or at any rate could not be said to have been used with
an intention to intimidate or insult the complainants. A general
utterance, not attracted towards the complainants, appears to have
been made, even if allegations in the complaint are taken at best
pedestal. The petitioners, though described as members of general
category, but they are also from backward class. This complaint,
thus, may be found lacking to show intentional intimidation or insult of
the complainants. This, to an extent, can also be noticed from the
subsequent conduct of the complainants. If actually they had been
insulted or intimidated, they could not be expected to go back to the
Gurudwara on 11.4.2001 to ask for holy book of Sri Guru Granth
Sahib for Akand Path for their own Gurudwara. Obviously, the
incident of 6.4.2001 was not meant either to intentionally insult the
complainants or to intimidate them. The ingredients of the offence
under Section 3 (x) of the Act, are, thus, not made out for framing a
charge under the said Section. The order framing the charge, thus,
can not be sustained.
The revision petition is allowed. Order framing the charge
is set-aside with all necessary consequences.
November 12, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE